nanog mailing list archives
Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 01:58:46 -0400
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Deepak Jain<deepak () ai net> wrote:
What does it say about these providers AUP that the FTC needed to go to court to turn them off?
I hate to re-start the atrivo/intercage/mccolo thread(s) but, often what happens is there just arent any real/usable complaints sent along to the upstream providers. The webhost (aps/3fn in this case) may have avoided most/many of the complaints, over the years, being sent to their upstream(s) or they may have successfully shuffled their links faster than outages could be arranged. If address blocks or customers are shuffled fast enough, or timely enough, it looks like the problem is resolved to an upstream. One trick I've seen used is to re-announce address blocks out differing interfaces such that providers catalog the complaints not against the direct customer but against peers or other customers 'innocents' (possibly). If the upstream providers don't get quality complaints in a format they can use and catalog... nothing is going to change. If the upstreams see no abuse record there is no reason to term a paying customer. With the more criminally minded 'customers', the problem is a lot harder to bring to resolution if you are stuck inside the contracts/laws of your jurisdiction. It behooves the community at large to properly catalog and properly complain about these sorts of things. Saying: "dirty-webhost-X is never going to deal with my complaints so, I stopped sending them there X months|years ago." is not going to resolve the issue(s). Email to abuse@ is 'free' for the sender, almost all complaint generation systems can be automated, almost all complaint acceptance systems can be as well if the complaints come in well formed and with the right information included. -Chris
The AUP standard is usually written much, much lower. Deepak Deepak ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Fri Jun 05 00:38:04 2009 Subject: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/06/ftc_sues_shuts_down_n_calif_we.html while allegedly a black hat, this is the first case i know of in which the usg has shut down an isp. nose of camel? first they came for ... randy
Current thread:
- ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Randy Bush (Jun 04)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Andrew D Kirch (Jun 04)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Christopher Morrow (Jun 04)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Michael Painter (Jun 04)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Jo Rhett (Jun 22)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Peter Dambier (Jun 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Deepak Jain (Jun 04)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Christopher Morrow (Jun 04)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Gadi Evron (Jun 05)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Christopher Morrow (Jun 05)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Christopher Morrow (Jun 04)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Wayne E. Bouchard (Jun 05)
- Re: ftc shuts down a colo and ip provider Andrew D Kirch (Jun 04)